Tracy's Qualitative Research Methods, Ch. 6

Tracy’s Qualitative Research Methods

Ch. 6: Field Roles, Fieldnotes, and Field Focus

Field Roles and Standpoints of Participant Observation

            Whereas once, the idea of “going native” (participating too fully in the scene) was considered a bad thing, modern qualitative researchers believe that this is the only way to fully understand the emotionality of participants. The phrase, which has colonialist undertones, assumes that researchers must remain detached and objective, a perspective that is generally rejected by qualitative scholars.  Instead, we ought to consider our place in the scene to be one gauged by degree of enmeshment and overlapping roles. We must ask which standpoint of participation is appropriate for the project, and what kind of data would best maximize outcomes and minimize limitations?

            When researchers study places or groups to which they are already a member, it is called complete participation. This gives more incentive to the researcher to spend time in the field. The availability of data is far greater than in other contexts, and it allows for greater insight into motivations, meanings, and assumptions. Researchers must remember, however, to pursue others’ interpretations as well as their own. If the researcher assumes the values and ideologies of the studied group, they are called an ardent activist. The challenges that come with this type of participation are the ethical problems and the potential feeling of deception by participants. Deception may be necessary, though, when studying contexts that otherwise would not divulge information, such as studying “up the hierarchy.” Being so heavily enmeshed in a culture may also mean that the researcher has a hard time distinguishing unique values.

            If a researcher enters a new culture and improvises or assumes membership in a temporary way, they are called a play participant. They watch and join in, but do so entirely to gain greater understanding of the culture. When the researcher joins in, but remains skeptical, they are called a controlled skeptic. Being a play participant means that the researcher is able to get close to those on the scene, and they go beyond basic reporting. This can sometimes be uncomfortable for the researcher. It is also easier for the play participant to make data recordings, while the complete participant usually does not have time or ability to do so. It is also easier for play participants to take breaks. One of the biggest challenges is in keeping good standing with the participants and making them feel that the research will not harm them.

            The focused participant observer is a researcher who “enters a scene with an explicit researcher status and a clear agenda of what data to gather in the scene.” This approach can include structured interviews, but without long-term participation. The field work with this type of role is highly structured, and it doesn’t last as long as other types of field work. The benefits of this type of work include the well-defined research plan, the low time commitment, and the ability to avoid recurring negotiations of access. It is, however, limited to the data that participants are willing to reveal about themselves, and it takes a necessary etic approach.

            The complete observer is one that is unobtrusive or on the peripheral. They do not participate in the scene. Participants are not aware that they are being studied. A positive characteristic of this is the ease of access. It also is usually granted exempt IRB status. The risk taken in this kind of research is the observer’s detachment from the scene. There is no questioning of the actors, and so it is difficult to gauge motivations or feelings. It is possible that misinterpretations can arise, fueled by ethnocentrism.

Writing Fieldnotes

            Field notes are narrations of the observations taken in the field. The process begins with raw records—the notes jotted down during the act of observing. It is a good idea not to write about what you are seeing as you see it. In some cases, you can bring along a camera or videocam, but this must be included in the IRB application. Voice recorders can also be particularly useful. The method used should be chosen by considering efficiency, reliability and durability, personal comfort, organizational skills, and the way you personally make sense of data. Even if you are not able to take notes, it is possible to get some fieldnotes out of memory. These can take the form of headnotes—“focused memories of specific events, as well as impressions and evaluations of the unfolding project” (Linklof & Taylor, 2002, p. 159).

            Fieldnotes should be written within a day and a half of having done fieldwork. You should try not to talk to anyone about the experience, because the conversation can color your recollections. The fieldnote should be created in a new file with a significant identifying name. It is helpful to put names to the episodes in the header of the document. The header is also a place for location and source of data. The fieldnote should be written quickly, without concern about enforcing a particular style. There should be some kind of organizational element, whether you start from a high point and work around it or write in a chronological fashion. They can also be organized as sketches or episodes. It is a good idea to end fieldnotes with a to do list. There can also be an ongoing cast of characters file in a separate document that keeps descriptions of certain recurring figures. Good fieldnotes should be clear, vivid, detailed, showing (rather than telling), full of dialogue, and complete with your interpretations.

            Lindhof and Taylor recommend that fieldnotes should take up 10 double-spaced pages for each hour of participant observation. Goffman suggests three to five. Tracy notes that it depends, and length is not always equal to quality. If they are too long, fieldnotes can become cumbersome.

            Fieldnotes should be concerned with showing things so that a reader would come to the same conclusion as the writer without being told what to think. Good fieldnotes also elaborate on tacit knowledge. They include descriptions of concrete, sensory detail. It is important to include nonverbal behavior. When you can include sentences or phrases directly from the scene, these are called in vivo terms.

            Another important thing to attempt in fieldnotes is to make the familiar strange and the strange familiar. They should explain things in a way that renews perception. This can be done by pointing out peculiarities about otherwise ordinary situations or familiarities in otherwise strange ones.

            Fieldnotes should also include analysis, which can come in the form of the researcher’s reactions, doubts, prejudices, frustrations, and interpretations of the scene. These can take the form of analytic reflections, which are commentary from the researcher about these feelings. They can be brief and reflective, more elaborate and focusing on specific issues, or more sustained analyses.

Focusing the Data and Using Heuristic Devices

            When researchers start questioning what kinds of data to collect, they should consider visiting the periphery. This can allow you to compare things like the typical to the extraordinary and the peripheral with the marginal. Data can come in three forms: typical/representational, negative/disconfirming, and exceptional/discrepant. Systematization can be facilitated through heuristic models—“conceptual tool kits that stimulate further investigation, learning, and thinking.” These can include processes like examining rituals or cultural scripts. Tracy advocates looking at the following: Space/scene, frontstage/backstage, objects and artifacts, actors and agents, roles and types, activities, interactions, time, goals/purpose, feelings, power relations, values, communication, and processes. As the researcher decides just which facets of the culture they are interested in, they can begin selective observation.